Zoning Amendment (Consent) – Outlaw Reserve MPUD Master Planned Unit Development – Outlaw Ridge, LLC - A Rezoning Request from an A-C Agricultural Zoning District and a PUD Planned Unit Development to an MPUD Master Planned Unit Development to Allow Development of a Maximum of 38 Single-Family Detached Lots on Approximately 58.69 Acres – No Funding Required
What the county recorded
Staff recommendation
Approval with Conditions
DispositionApproved
Approved Staff’s recommendation.
The source document
The county’s agenda for Board of County Commissioners, Jan 11, 2022
The published PDF, as served by the county. This item is one entry in it.
The county’s minutes for Board of County Commissioners, Jan 11, 2022
The published PDF, as served by the county. This item is one entry in it.
This case, across meetings
PDD-22-7543 in full →PDD-22-7543 was taken up 2 times between Dec 9, 2021 and Jan 11, 2022 — this is appearance 2.
- Dec 9, 2021PlanningPC11No disposition in the minutes
- Jan 11, 2022BoardP81▶Approvedthis item
What was said
Machine transcription of 8m of recording, with speaker names inferred from voice matching. 74% of 47 lines carry a name. It shows what was said, not what was decided, and both the words and the names can be wrong.
Item P eighty one, I already stated the um the pub, but I'll pay say it stated again. It's published in the Tampa Times on November twenty-fourth, twenty twenty-one.
Good afternoon, Tammy Snyder, Planning and Development.
We have Outlaw Reserve M Pvd, P D D twenty two seventy-five forty-three. Here's a location that is um It's adjoining Outlaw Ridge. Um and we have Tampa Bay Sporting Clays directly to the north. And the trail that you speak of is directly to the east, abutting these properties. And proposes a rezoning request from an AR agricultural and a PUD Plant Unit Development
to an MPUD to allow the development of a maximum of 38 large rural single-family detached lots ranging from one half acre to one and three-quarters acres on approximately 58.69 acres. Also requested are variations from the land development code 901.6.d.11 Interconnect, 901.7 and 901.8 bicycle and pedestrian facilities, 700 subdivision and platting standards, 805.6 restrictions on
post-development wetlands, and 905.2 landscaping and buffering. And here is their proposed master plan.
And this project is within the CPEV overlay in a low density, meaning two units per acre residential area.
The subject property is located in Central Pasco, abutting air and cutoff on the east side, approximately one mile south of State Road 52. On October 17, 2000, the BCC approved a residential PUD for Outlaw Ridge. All four subject partials are currently vacant. And the PC heard the item at the December 9th, 2021 meeting and unanimously voted to recommend approval to the BCC. Bell DC specifies that variations from the code may be reviewed and approved by the PC and
the BCC during public hearings. Variations shall be allowed where the BCC specifically finds in the particular case that the proposed variations meet or exceed the intent of this code. The PDD has reviewed the requested variations noted and found that they do meet the intent of the code. The proposed request is consistent with the PASCO LDC and with the applicable provisions of the Pasco County Comprehensive Plan. And with that, we recommend approval with conditions.
Yeah, can you just throw up that map for a second and then I'll make have someone make the motion to approve. Um the trail. It's
problem.
No. And you know, when I first saw it, I thought it was the other one. So it's it's my mistake. But it it it it would right, but
Uh it would be good if somehow there is some kind of quarter that's so that people can one day get to the trail that's gonna be right behind it. Um you see where those lines are? That's the Orange Belt Trail. And that is a major trail for the county. So with that, if anyone wants to make a motion.
I have a question. And this is thinking long term in the future. Is this septic or sewer? Septic.
Question is for future? If we're going to have to convert all the septic to sewer later on, will they be responsible or are we gonna approve new septic and then the county has to cover the cost to upgrade their septic to sewer, just in general.
Like a general question.
So I can attempt that.
This is just general question.
The the the areas where we're really focused on subject to sewer are those that impact either the watershed or the gulf. is not I mean, there are septics all over East Pasco County that we're not inclined to connect to sewer at any time in the in the future. And so I think this would be one where, you know, assuming the soils can sustain suit septic for a long time, probably will be septic for a long time.
Because we're not looking at every subject system in the county connected to sewer.
And I'll I'll add on to the administrator's comment. So Mm-hmm. This project would only have to convert if a non-pressurized line was within X number of feet of the lot.
It's developed at half half acre. Minimum, yes. Minimum half acre lots. It's unlikely that w as the administrator said, it's unlikely that we would provide service. to a develop unless they were having failures that that Um to a low density project
like that. But the county wouldn't wouldn't end up being responsible. The rest of the county wouldn't be responsible is basically my question. So
No, the generally it is the homeowner's responsibility to connect if we run a line. Past them that's non-pressurized.
Only concerning, so motion to approve.
Well um
okay. We'll start keeping with our distance if we can with these motions. We it.
Thank
you.
But Commissioner Oakley's comment.
I w I was just gonna ask M Madam Chair w what I mean, I'm not sure exactly where the line is, where the connection would be or what you want for verbiage in that to make that concern.
Uh well, see where it says hideout trail. On that picture? The the trail most likely, I mean we're we're in a route study, uh that is part of the Orange Belt corridor. that's um and that's I think that's Swift Mud property there. And um that that's I think where we hope to have it. But the issue is and I'm Glad you're asking this 'cause I and I don't know what happens in our staff meetings, but Sometimes we ask to reserve right of way for roads.
But Some I think we need to be a little bit more than a little bit. asking maybe if we could get s some uh easement or right away so that we can connect. large populations to the major trails. So I I'm not pulling up my map in the area right now and I I get that the orange belt is under its route study, but I'm hoping our planning department's looking at the big picture and And protecting the public's ability to access the
trails.
We'll leave it to the resident commissioner.
Well the the she already made a motion, so I'll I'll second it. But this is definitely compatible with with the area.
So it's uh it's definitely something they've been working on for a while. So I'll definitely support
your mic soft. So we had a motion and a second. And all those in favor? Oh wait. Aye. I'm sorry, under discussion, Commissioner Oakley has to be.
Does that include the recommendation by Commissioner Starkey? Well
you said it as a cadet, so
I feel like that ship has sailed. On this, maybe there's an opportunity on the property to the north. Is that the sporting place to the north? Perhaps the county? Maybe we can work on getting some kind of easement there. Um I mean we only need how wide is the trail?
But
we need to feet ten feet.
We need to finish the route study and have the board adopt the route study so we know where we want the property to be. And that's in process. Yeah,
and that's why I think that's
a good thing.
There's that too. Um so so my statement's kind of a gen general statement. Uh So I mean it's to the detriment of these people. No doubt. Okay. All in favor? Aye. Aye. Opposed? Okay. Um P
eighty four.